There is an old saying in politics “never let your opposition define who or what you are.” That is good advice in that your opponents, more likely than not, will heap a lot of undesirable traits onto a term, demonize that term into an incoherent pile of blither, and then hang it around your neck as if they have arrived at another “truth.” Demonization is the tool of ideologues.

There is no ideological basis for the term, “progressivism.” It derives from a fundamental human drive linked to purpose as well as to progress. It is to see the human condition as having grossly disparate outcomes in health, wealth, and prosperity that are not of our doing, rather stemming from chance factors. It sees high purpose in wanting to make changes in those conditions, not in taking from others, but in finding opportunities for the downtrodden so they might find their own way. Progressivism is therefore the start of a purpose-driven life where equality of opportunity is one of the fundamental driving forces that allows us to see beyond “what is” to a time and place in which “what ought to be” is a fundamental motivator in our transcendence to a better life.

Back in the 1940’s the psychologist Abraham Maslow set forth his hierarchy of human needs in a five-tier model. In ascending order those needs were: 1) Physiological, the need to survive; 2) Safety, the need to be safe from the perils to life; 3) Belonging, the need to find comfort and love within our community of others; 4) Esteem, the need to feel respect among our peers, and 5) Self-Actualization, the need to fulfill our potential as human beings. Later in his life he emphasized Transcendence as derived from love, or the need to “give back” something to humanity. Others have placed transcendence at the top of the pyramid of human needs.

I like to think of transcendence as the highest of all human motivations, the one articulated so well by Horace Mann when he said: “Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity.” I would only modify the words “won some victory” to “accomplished something worthwhile” for humanity.

And so, there is my definition of Progressivism. It has very little to do with political slogans, or political affiliations except in the sense that “doing something worthwhile” means to work for the betterment of humanity, and that is a good characteristic of anyone who seeks public office. It also applies to any occupation, or any calling, whatever the source of that calling, if it is linked to the desire to improve the human condition. It also flows smoothly from the need for self-actualization and excellence in our pursuits to find fulfillment in life. It is action-driven and does not allow much room for by-standers or passengers in this thing we call life. If there is any value in standing in opposition to progressivism, I fail to see it, to feel it, nor do I want to be a part of it.